It is often said that with great power comes great responsibility. For centuries, physicians have recited the Hippocratic Oath, solemnly swearing to respect the great power afforded to them by treating their patients responsibly, fairly, and with dignity. Yet, as the years have passed, science and medical technology have advanced to the level where life can be prolonged to inordinate lengths. With this great, and ever-growing, power comes great and ever-growing responsibility. As life nears the end, as all that was once great about the world vanishes, as the specter of one’s lucidity and existence fades, doctors and patients are confronted with a crucial decision: to be, or not to be. Either side poses valid and intelligent points, though the debate, in the end, comes down to two separate, yet related points: the freedom of the patient and the duty of the physician. When this issue is viewed through the lens of these two aspects, the decision is clear. Physician-assisted suicide must be upheld.
The arguments in opposition to physician-assisted suicide are based less on logic and common sense than lofty ideals and misplaced political correctness. The group most fervently opposed to euthanasia is the Catholic Church. According to the church’s official Declaration on Euthanasia, “No one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God’s love for that person, without violating a fundamental right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity.” This perspective lends some appropriate arguments into the debate. Life is a precious thing; we should not view it as something worth abandoning at the drop of a hat. We must recognize the inherent beauty and intrinsic worth of existence in this universe. It can then be assumed that taking another’s life, depriving that person of the opportunity to further live, is an evil thing. However, this does not logically follow given the typical circumstances of euthanasia.
Physician-assisted suicide does not occur on a whim of the doctor’s but rather after the consent of the patient has been received. Therefore, any deaths inflicted by a physician are not murders any more than surgery is assault. The key difference lies in the consent of the patient, which must be considered above all else. Furthermore, it is unfair to impose a religious viewpoint on an entire society. While many Americans adhere to the Catholic religion, it would be unprecedented to take aspects of religious doctrine into account when crafting legislation regarding physician-assisted suicide. Though many derive their opposition to euthanasia from Catholic dogma, all papal edicts are irrelevant to the discussion. A religious person may argue that, though a person gives consent for physician-assisted suicide, there is still murder involved since any deviation from God’s plan is murder. Once again, there is no place for such absolutist claims in a public debate. For this type of religion to be at all compatible with the modern world, all medicine would have to be abolished, since all medicine is, in some way, a deviation from what God intended.
Another concern, this one slightly more valid, comes from Alison Davis, an activist on behalf of the handicapped. She claims that an acceptance of euthanasia will lead to an inferiority attitude toward handicapped people. She argues, “This notion of ‘non-personhood’ denies the right of handicapped people to be recognized as equal human beings in a caring society.” It is worth examining whether a tolerance of (or firm belief in) euthanasia will lead to anything more drastic and undesirable.
Once again, the debate comes down to the choice of the individual. To avoid the “slippery slope” that euthanasia opponents claim will result from its adoption, we must leave the option for suicide with the patient. If the choice lies with the patient, there will be no one else making that decision. No one in his right mind would advocate for the death of another person if there was not a valid reason for that person’s death. Thus, the possibility of outside influences convincing an unwilling person to kill himself is slim to none. The fact remains: euthanasia is for those whose lives have become so miserable and unbearable that death will come as a relief and a release. The opportunity for physician-assisted suicide should exist for these people, and no one else. This is not to say that these people are worth less than an able-bodied individual, but rather that those whose disabilities and/or illnesses preclude them from enjoying life’s pleasures should have the opportunity to move on if they so choose.
Pieter Admiraal, a Dutch physician who practices active euthanasia, looks at the issue from a perspective contrary to that of Ms. Davis or the Catholic Church. Admiraal says, in regards to active euthanasia, “I practice it unashamedly because I regard it as sometimes morally right, as not only compatible with the properly understood duties and responsibilities of a doctor, but as an act sometimes required by them.” He goes on to support this with examples where active euthanasia relieved suffering and provided for the best possible result. From his perspective, euthanasia is merely another aspect of the palliative care that it is a doctor’s duty to provide. It must be accepted that, for some patients, the best possible treatment is death. We are not glorifying death or rejoicing in the death of the terminally ill or disabled; we are providing those unfortunate souls with an alternative that may be better than their current state.
Much of a person’s stance on euthanasia comes from the context in which the person frames the issue. Since euthanasia can be a matter of patient rights, religious tradition, human value, physician responsibility, etc., the opinions abound. Perhaps it is because I see euthanasia as a matter of patient rights and physician responsibility that I am so strongly for it.
I believe that life is precious. However, I also believe that much of the preciousness of life lies in a person’s ability to choose. If the opportunity for euthanasia is denied to a person, that life has just lost some of its worth. Since we are all individuals, we should all have the ability to choose how to live (or die) as we see fit. Likewise, I believe that a doctor’s responsibility to a patient is to alleviate the signs and symptoms of any medical condition that presents itself on the doctor’s watch. If death will do the trick better than medicine, then so be it.
As Mr. Admiraal himself said, “As doctors we have two primary duties: to ensure the well-being of our patients, and to respect their autonomy.” If a patient wants death, that is the right of the patient; no one else may say otherwise, even the patient’s doctor. It’s as clear as that.
The arguments in opposition to physician-assisted suicide are based less on logic and common sense than lofty ideals and misplaced political correctness. The group most fervently opposed to euthanasia is the Catholic Church. According to the church’s official Declaration on Euthanasia, “No one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God’s love for that person, without violating a fundamental right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity.” This perspective lends some appropriate arguments into the debate. Life is a precious thing; we should not view it as something worth abandoning at the drop of a hat. We must recognize the inherent beauty and intrinsic worth of existence in this universe. It can then be assumed that taking another’s life, depriving that person of the opportunity to further live, is an evil thing. However, this does not logically follow given the typical circumstances of euthanasia.
Physician-assisted suicide does not occur on a whim of the doctor’s but rather after the consent of the patient has been received. Therefore, any deaths inflicted by a physician are not murders any more than surgery is assault. The key difference lies in the consent of the patient, which must be considered above all else. Furthermore, it is unfair to impose a religious viewpoint on an entire society. While many Americans adhere to the Catholic religion, it would be unprecedented to take aspects of religious doctrine into account when crafting legislation regarding physician-assisted suicide. Though many derive their opposition to euthanasia from Catholic dogma, all papal edicts are irrelevant to the discussion. A religious person may argue that, though a person gives consent for physician-assisted suicide, there is still murder involved since any deviation from God’s plan is murder. Once again, there is no place for such absolutist claims in a public debate. For this type of religion to be at all compatible with the modern world, all medicine would have to be abolished, since all medicine is, in some way, a deviation from what God intended.
Another concern, this one slightly more valid, comes from Alison Davis, an activist on behalf of the handicapped. She claims that an acceptance of euthanasia will lead to an inferiority attitude toward handicapped people. She argues, “This notion of ‘non-personhood’ denies the right of handicapped people to be recognized as equal human beings in a caring society.” It is worth examining whether a tolerance of (or firm belief in) euthanasia will lead to anything more drastic and undesirable.
Once again, the debate comes down to the choice of the individual. To avoid the “slippery slope” that euthanasia opponents claim will result from its adoption, we must leave the option for suicide with the patient. If the choice lies with the patient, there will be no one else making that decision. No one in his right mind would advocate for the death of another person if there was not a valid reason for that person’s death. Thus, the possibility of outside influences convincing an unwilling person to kill himself is slim to none. The fact remains: euthanasia is for those whose lives have become so miserable and unbearable that death will come as a relief and a release. The opportunity for physician-assisted suicide should exist for these people, and no one else. This is not to say that these people are worth less than an able-bodied individual, but rather that those whose disabilities and/or illnesses preclude them from enjoying life’s pleasures should have the opportunity to move on if they so choose.
Pieter Admiraal, a Dutch physician who practices active euthanasia, looks at the issue from a perspective contrary to that of Ms. Davis or the Catholic Church. Admiraal says, in regards to active euthanasia, “I practice it unashamedly because I regard it as sometimes morally right, as not only compatible with the properly understood duties and responsibilities of a doctor, but as an act sometimes required by them.” He goes on to support this with examples where active euthanasia relieved suffering and provided for the best possible result. From his perspective, euthanasia is merely another aspect of the palliative care that it is a doctor’s duty to provide. It must be accepted that, for some patients, the best possible treatment is death. We are not glorifying death or rejoicing in the death of the terminally ill or disabled; we are providing those unfortunate souls with an alternative that may be better than their current state.
Much of a person’s stance on euthanasia comes from the context in which the person frames the issue. Since euthanasia can be a matter of patient rights, religious tradition, human value, physician responsibility, etc., the opinions abound. Perhaps it is because I see euthanasia as a matter of patient rights and physician responsibility that I am so strongly for it.
I believe that life is precious. However, I also believe that much of the preciousness of life lies in a person’s ability to choose. If the opportunity for euthanasia is denied to a person, that life has just lost some of its worth. Since we are all individuals, we should all have the ability to choose how to live (or die) as we see fit. Likewise, I believe that a doctor’s responsibility to a patient is to alleviate the signs and symptoms of any medical condition that presents itself on the doctor’s watch. If death will do the trick better than medicine, then so be it.
As Mr. Admiraal himself said, “As doctors we have two primary duties: to ensure the well-being of our patients, and to respect their autonomy.” If a patient wants death, that is the right of the patient; no one else may say otherwise, even the patient’s doctor. It’s as clear as that.